stoa ida 'technology options for deep-seabed … options for deep-seabed exploitation ......

Deep-seabed exploitation

Tackling economic, environmental

and societal challenges

Technology options for deep-seabed exploitation

Tackling economic, environmentaland societal challenges

In-depth AnalysisIP/G/STOA/FWC/2013-001/Lot3/C4

March 2015

PE 547.401

STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment

This STOA project 'Technology options for deep-seabed exploitation - Tackling economic,environmental and societal challenges' was carried out by Triple E Consulting and Milieu Ltd. at therequest of the Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) Panel, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (DG EPRS) of the General Secretariat of the EuropeanParliament.

AUTHORS

Koen Rademaekers, Oscar Widerberg, Katarina Svatikova, Roel van der Veen - Triple E Consulting.Eleonora Panella - Milieu Ltd.

STOA RESEARCH ADMINISTRATOR

Nera KuljanicScientific Foresight UnitDirectorate for Impact Assessment and European Added ValueDirectorate-General for Parliamentary Research ServicesEuropean Parliament, Rue Wiertz 60, B-1047 BrusselsE-mail: [email protected]

LINGUISTIC VERSION

Original: EN

ABOUT THE PUBLISHER

To contact STOA or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] document is available on the Internet at: http://www.ep.europa.eu/stoa/

Manuscript completed in March 2015Brussels, © European Union, 2015

Cover photo credit: Submarine Ring of Fire 2014 - Ironman, NSF/NOAA, Jason, Copyright WHOI

DISCLAIMER

The content of this document is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressedtherein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed tothe Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the EuropeanParliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.

PE 547.401ISBN 978-92-823-6656-1DOI 10.2861/310632CAT QA-02-15-201-EN-N


AbstractExploration and exploitation of the deep-seas in search of marine minerals and geneticresources have over the past 15 years received increased attention. Developments insub-marine technologies, rising raw material prices and scarcity, and advancements inbiotechnology are changing the business-case for furthering activities in the marineenvironment. This report provides a state-of-play overview on exploring andexploiting deep-sea resources. A Cost-Benefit Analysis identifies the main potentialsand challenges in a scenario where exploitation increases. Policy options are suggestedto balance trade-offs between economic, social and environmental aspects associatedwith future developments.

For deep-sea minerals, the future remains uncertain regarding to what extent theseafloor will be tapped of its resources on a commercial scale. Industry players activein the field are generally confident that it is a matter of time before mining will begin.However, there are no commercial activities to date and prospects have been delayedrepeatedly. Moreover, there are uncertainties regarding the legal framework and theenvironmental and social impacts of large scale deep-sea mining.

For biological resources the biotech and pharmaceutical sector sees large potentials forfinding more applications from marine genetic and biological resources and Europeanresearch is on the forefront of the developments. However, competition is fierce with,in particular, companies from the US, Japan and China filing for patents. Incomparison with marine mineral resources, the environmental and social impacts ofexploration and exploitation are expected to be less significant.

European research and companies are in the forefront on exploration and exploitationof deep-sea resources. The success of the sector to date has relied much oncollaborations between public and private actors which underscores the importancefor public support and legal framework for operation.


CONTENTS

1. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

2. What are deep sea resources? ......................................................................................... 1

3. What are the main knowledge gaps and risks?............................................................ 3

4. What is the legal framework at the international and European level? ................... 4

5. What are the main technologies for exploration and exploitation? .......................... 5

6. What are the main economic aspects and costs? What are the main benefits? ....... 7

7. What are the main environmental and societal impacts? ........................................... 8

8. Conclusion: What are the next steps and what could the EU do?............................. 9


1

1. Introduction

The deep sea is home to a number of marine organisms and mineral resources, whose richesare gaining interest among scientific community as well as industry in and outside of EU.The business-case for exploring and exploiting raw materials and marine genetic resources(MGR) has become more attractive following the development of new technologies forexploring and exploiting the deep sea. For minerals, high resource prices, volatile markets,geopolitics and scarcity have contributed to renewed enthusiasm from a range of Europeanstakeholders including public actors such as states and regions as well as companies andindustry organizations. For MGR, life-saving drugs, biotech products and cosmetics arebeing developed based on organisms found in marine environment. However, the potentialof harvesting the seas in often pristine, and potentially unique ecosystems and habitats, alsohas its critics, in particular from environmental and civil society groups but also concernedstates. Unfortunately, there is very little knowledge on how potentially dramaticperturbations will affect the deep seabed, which makes a proper environmental impactassessment difficult. Several unresolved issues also remain with regard to the distribution ofrisks and gains in a fair and transparent manner. Ultimately, to enable a sustainable use ofour oceans, we need a clear and robust regulative framework which properly regulates theextraction procedures.

This is a layman’s summary of a larger report commissioned by the European Parliament’sScientific Foresight Unit with the objective to assess the state of knowledge on thetechnologies available for deep sea resource exploration and exploitation, and analyse theassociated economic, environmental, societal and legal aspects. It covers mineral resources(deep sea mining) as well as marine genetic resources (bioprospecting) and addresses thefollowing key questions:

What are deep sea resources? What are the main knowledge gaps and risks? What is the legal framework at the international and European level? What are the main technologies for exploration and exploitation activities? What are the main economic aspects and costs? What are the main benefits? What are the main environmental and societal impacts? What are the next steps and what could the EU do?

2. What are deep sea resources?

There are many ways to define the “deep sea”. A common and comprehensive definitionsituates the deep sea where the continental shelf ends at depths greater than 200 meters.Deep sea resources are thus either found in the Exclusive Economic Zone but also in AreasBeyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) of nation states, which has consequences for thelegislative framework under which they are regulated (see section 4). Furthermore, deep searesources can be divided into raw material resources and marine genetic resources (MGR).

Raw material resources can further be divided into three different types, polymetallic (ormanganese) nodules, poly-metallic sulphides (or seafloor massive sulphides) and cobalt-richferromanganese crusts.


2

1. Exploration

2. Resourceassessment,

evaluation andplanning

3. Extraction, liftingand surfaceoperations

4. Offshore andonshore logistics 5. Processing 6. Distribution and

sales

7. Mine closureand site

remediation

1. Discovering andbioprospecting

2. Research anddevelopment 3. Product development 4. Commercialisation and

up-scaling 5. Market entry

Manganese nodules are extremely slow-growing formations of 2 cm to 15 cm in diameter,consisting of ferromanganese oxides. These contain valuable minerals such as nickel, copper,manganese, molybdenum, lithium, rare-earth elements and possibly cobalt. However, thenodules comprise primarily of manganese and iron. The nodules are predominantly foundhalf-buried in comparatively flat deep sea sediment at a depth of 4,000 to 6,000 meters. Beingsituated on the seabed, they can be identified and collected relatively easily. The largestconcentrations of these types of nodules are located between the west coast of Mexico andHawaii, on the Peruvian coast and in the abyss of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean.

Seafloor massive sulphides (SMS) consist of heavy metal sulphides derived from hot waterthat vented from the seafloor at a depth of 1,500 - 3,000 meters. These SMS deposits consist ofsulphide minerals that contain various metals, such as copper, lead, zinc, gold and silver. SMSdeposits are distributed along mid-oceanic ridges where tectonic plates diverge, in areas suchas the East Pacific Rise, the Central Atlantic Ridge, and the North Fiji Basin in the SouthPacific. They are also found in back-arc basins, near volcanic ridges that mark the locationwhere tectonic plates converge, for instance near Japan and Indonesia.

Manganese crusts are also composed of ferromanganese oxides and contain cobalt, nickel,manganese, tellurium, rare earth elements, niobium and possibly platinum. The crusts coverthe bedrock on the slope or top of submerged volcanic islands, submarine ridges andseamounts like asphalt with a thickness of several millimetres to tens of centimetres at a depthof 800 to 2,400 meters. Manganese crusts are found at seamounts worldwide with the largestdeposits being in the Pacific Ocean, in proximity of Australia and New Zealand. The PacificOcean accounts for 57 per cent of the global total of seamounts.

Marine genetic resources (MGR) consist of genetic resources from marine macro- andmicroorganisms and represent the most valuable part of marine biological resources, thusare interesting to be used for human purposes. The process of sampling and commercializingMGR’s is generally called bioprospecting. The main applications are found inpharmaceutical, biotechnology and cosmetic industry to develop new medicine, chemicals orcosmetics.

The differences in characteristics of raw materials and MGR put them on very different valuechains and equally different cost-benefit analyses. For instance, while harvesting rawmaterials would incur long-term sustained environmental damage to the locations inquestions, the sampling of MGR often is limited to a kilo of matter.

Overview of the value chain for raw materials

Overview of the value chain for biological resources


3

3. What are the main knowledge gaps and risks?

For raw materials, industry and researchers have a fairly good overview of proven andinferred sites that could be interesting for further exploration. For example, in terms ofmanganese nodules, the most explored area is the Clarion-Clipperton Fracture zone, which islocated in the Pacific Ocean. Resource content of the area is estimated on 34 billion ton ofmanganese nodules spread over 9 million km2. More than 10 different consortia holdconcessions and are currently exploring the area. With a mining cycle of 20 – 30 years andestimated around 1.5 million tonnes of resource extracted per year, this area offers greatpotential for exploitation. However, overall global estimations of concentration and size ofraw material resources are not available. This is a major impediment because uncertainty interms of concentrations and magnitude hinders a robust cost and benefit assessment to becarried out at the individual project level. For example, the deposits identified by Nautilus inthe Solwara 1 resource, the world’s at this point most advanced project for deep sea mining,suffice only for a couple of years mining. Consequently, it is uncertain whether theenormous investments required for starting up operations (in the range of a couple ofhundreds of millions of euros) are commercially viable.

Marine genetic resources do not share the uncertainties of mining in terms of deposits. Thescientific evidence shows that the potential for finding new genes is large, particularly in themicrobial realm, with more than 1.2 million previously undescribed genes on one cubicmeter of water. However, even if the exploration and inventory of marine species have spedup rapidly over the last few years, at current rate, it would take another 250 to 1,000 yearsbefore all species are analysed.

In terms of technological gaps to start mining, industry representatives seem confident thatonce the business-case is there, the current level of technology will not stand in the way.Much has been learnt from deep sea drilling in the oil and gas industry which havedeveloped techniques to make drilling at up to 2,000 meters common-place. The technologiesfor mining differ, however, per resource type. For both seafloor massive sulfides (SMS) andmanganese nodules, technologies are there (at least the blue-prints) to start mining. Forcrusts, the case is slightly different due to the hard character of the seafloor in which thedeposits are situated. European companies are at the forefront of exploration technologies,however, they are a bit lagging behind in terms of exploitation technologies. Nevertheless,more research and technology development is going on in this field (e.g. via FP7 or Horizon2020 projects).

Again, for biological resources, the main technological challenges are not in the marineenvironment but rather on the analytical capacity in laboratories on land.

Across the board, the main gaps in knowledge and risks appears to be associated with whatone interviewee termed “the social and environmental license [for companies] to operate”.Very little is known about the environmental impacts on marine ecosystems and societalimpacts on local communities. Environmental groups and many scientists on their hand,argue that the risk for environmental damage to ecosystems we know very little of, isunacceptable and call for rigorous regulation based on the precautionary principle andEnvironmental Impact Assessments (EIA).


4

For deep sea mining beyond areas of national jurisdiction, the regulatory framework withregards to exploitation is under slow development. As a result, entrepreneurs lack the rulesfor playing the game, which scares off investors (see next section). In case of marine geneticresources, legal framework gaps are even larger to non-existent.

4. What is the legal framework at the international and Europeanlevel?

Most of the deep sea resources examined in the report are situated beyond areas of nationaljurisdiction and under international waters, which complicates the legal framework underwhich companies and states are expected to operate. EEZ areas are under the responsibilityof the coastal States, which have exclusive rights over these zones. To date, there are no DSMactivities in the EEZ of EU Member States, however, negotiations are going on in Portugal.Due to the nascent and relatively new issues that have arisen from both mining and the useof genetic resources, there are still large regulatory uncertainties and gaps that need to befilled at the international level. The key international regime governing the oceans is theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was adopted in 1982and entered into force in 1994, signed and ratified by the majority of the world’s countries(currently 166 parties including the EU and its Member States) with some notable exceptions,such as the United States of America, is at this point in time the main forum for negotiation.

To govern and coordinate deep seabed issues, in particular deep sea minerals, anautonomous international organization called the International Seabed Authority (ISA) hasbeen created under UNCLOS in 1994. All States Parties to the Convention are automaticallymembers of the International Seabed Authority. Currently, ISA has adopted regulations onexploration for Nodules (2000), Sulphides (2010) and Crusts (2012), while regulations onexploitation are currently still under development.

The International Marine Minerals Society (IMMS) made an attempt, following a request bythe marine mining industry, to regulate the environmental considerations in relation toresponsible marine mining, developing the Code for Environmental Management of MarineMining. This code tries to integrate environmental considerations for responsible marinemining by seeking to provide environmental principles and guidelines to complementnational and international marine mining environmental regulations in place.

The governance of biological and genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction isless well regulated. Article 133(a) under the UNCLOS, which defines “resources of the Area”is limited to “mineral resources”, i.e. the competencies of the ISA are therefore restricted toraw materials and minerals. This is largely because marine bioprospecting, at the time ofdrafting, was yet to be developed. Instead, a central legal challenge is the sharing of thebenefits reaped by companies and developed countries which are currently safe-guarded bya rigorous international patent-system under the TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights) agreement. Nevertheless, while there is a large gap ininternational legislation aiming to regulate biological resources, there are several interveningpieces of legislation, in particular environmental legislation. For example, the 1992Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biodiversity and promotes the sustainableuse of its components, the conservation and the fair sharing of benefits of the geneticresources in areas under national jurisdiction. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic


5

Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (theNagoya Protocol) to the CBD, which was adopted in 2010, tried to clarify the jurisdictionalscope of the CBD in this matter. The UNCLOS needs further development to accommodatenew demands. In January 2015, the ninth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended InformalWorking Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marinebiological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (BBNJ) took place. In the meeting itwas agreed to develop a new legally binding instrument on BBNJ under UNCLOS.

5. What are the main technologies for exploration andexploitation?

For both mining and biological resources there are a few key technologies of particularimportance. In both, the exploration and the exploitation phase, the availability of modernand adequately equipped ships are central. For the exploration, there are already severalsuch ships in operation, often linked to national research institutes and geological surveys.Research cruises are expensive and a vessel costs around 50,000–100,000 euro/day inoperation.

For raw materials, each resource type presents its own technological challenge:

SMS consist of hard rock and therefore require significant force to extract, and are situatedin areas with cumbersome topographical terrains hindering the operability of a RemotelyOperated Vehicles (ROVs) which cannot handle steep slopes.

Polymetallic nodules are simply spread across the seabed and can be excavated through agathering mechanism such as a suction system or rake. The main difficulty is the location ofthe nodules at depths exceeding 3,000 m and wide area of distribution.

Manganese crusts present similar challenges as SMS. The key difficulty is removing the thinlayer of crust while leaving the waste rock behind.

Consequently, three different ways of extraction are required. Seafloor Massive Sulphides(SMS) would be collected by ROVs on the seafloor and then piped up to the surface awaitingship for further processing (see Fig 1). The readily available manganese nodules can becollected through an ROV functioning like vacuum-cleaner (see Fig 2). Manganese crusts canbe collected by large ROVs that grind through the hard crust, creating a mixture containingthe valuable minerals which would then need to be piped to the surface (see Fig 3).


6

Figure 1 Schematic of deep sea mining of Seafloor massive sulphides

Figure 2 Schematic of deep sea mining of Manganese nodules

Figure 3 Schematic of deep sea mining of Manganese crusts

Source for the three figures: Clark & Smith (2013)


7

To assess the readiness of the different technologies to be put into action, the main reportincludes an overview of the “technology readiness level (TRL)” of each component. Overall,for the exploration phase, where mapping and drilling plays the major part, the TRL is fairlyhigh and well-developed. In terms of exploitation on the other hand, the TRL is fairly lowwith several of the technologies in the value chain needing further development.

6. What are the main economic aspects and costs? What are themain benefits?

The business case for deep sea mining and biological resources follow different logics. In thecase of mining, exogenous forces, including resources prices and cost of capital, areimportant factors in the equation. For the mining itself, the initial invested capital (CAPEX)for building ships and developing the technology needed, is substantive. Not all projects arecommercially viable but decisions to go offshore are in many cases strategic (e.g. to developand use innovative technologies and investigate new areas of mining). The mining industryhas always been a high cost industry, and it is always important to compare the costs of deepsea mining with terrestrial mining. In the latter case, the overall costs, including the costs ofcomplying with environmental and safety regulation, the fixed infrastructure costs of landsites (the mining infrastructure in the deep sea is mobile, i.e. can be moved from one depositto another) and the cost of labour on land can make mining deposits in deep sea attractivefor industry and investors.

In the main report, an overview of the deep sea mining value chain, the technologies and theestimated costs is provided. Exploration costs more than $100,000 a day; most explorationtrips need a budget of at least $50 to 200 million. For exploitation, the costs run in hundredsof millions of euro, depending on the deposit and location. The largest costs are the costs ofthe vessel, drilling and the cost of crew. In terms of economic benefits, these are mainly themarket value of the specific resource at the time of sale and the cost savings deep sea miningcan generate vis-à-vis terrestrial mining. These cost savings include for example, much lowerprocessing costs in the deep sea, no waste digging costs, lower energy costs and no groundmoving costs (mobile infrastructure).

The table below provides a breakdown of the main costs related to exploration.

Table 1 Overview of the main costs for exploration activities, mineral resourcesValue chain Technology Cost estimate

ExplorationExploration ingeneral

Ship time 1 ship around €1billion; most expensive part of exploration:around $50,000 -100,000 per day, if 60 days needed $3-5million in total

ROV $50,000 – 100,000 a daySMS exploration Nautilus spent $150-200 million, high cost per tonne of

deposit as low amount of deposits foundNodules exploration Cca. 20 months of cruise needed to identify the nodules. 1

month with the right equipment costs €10-15 million.Locating Mapping (SMS deposits) Neptune spent more than $100 million to map

Mapping (nodules) $5-7 million cost for mapping time (30-60 days); $30-35million to map resources

Sampling Deep sea vehicle going downand back to the surface

Up to US$ 1 million per day, excluding maintenance costs

Analysis of the samples Less costly than ship time


8

For biological resources, the costs structure of venturing into the deep sea is much differentsince the sampling and collection under water is limited. For exploration, the costs for vesseltime and ROVs are expected to be similar to that of mining. Instead, the largest costs are inthe analysis, research and development of applications for the biotech and pharmaceuticalindustry, which overall has a high risk/high return structure. The product development costis the highest cost element (hundreds of millions to billion and high risks), not the discoverystage. Due to the high cost of marine scientific research and the slim odds of success (only 1-2% of pre-clinical candidates become commercially produced), the potential for makingprofits is rather small according to one interviewee, which limits the involvement ofindustry. Only a handful of companies succeeded in putting a product originating from deepsea marine genetic resources on the market. One of these success stories is Pharma Mar (fromSpain), which managed to produce three marine organisms for less than $1 billion.

7. What are the main environmental and societal impacts?

The deep sea is the largest ecosystem on earth and scientists have estimated that as many as10 million species may inhabit the deep sea. However, it remains among the least exploredareas on earth and human activities such as bottom trawling are already showing havingnegative impacts. It is still difficult to fully estimate the real environmental impact of deepsea mining exploration and exploitation activities as no mining has taken place yet. Due tothe fragility of these ecosystems, the unknown resilience of this system and the unknowneffectiveness of the anticipated efforts to assist natural recovery, it is predicted that theseactivities will have significant effects if not properly regulated. Regarding bioprospecting ofmarine genetic resources, the environmental impact cannot really be compared with deepsea mining due to the different techniques to extract the resource and the dimension of areaconsidered. However, since it consists of merely collecting samples in small quantities, theenvironmental impact is expected to be much lower than from mining.

To bridge the knowledge gaps on environmental impact issues, research on the deep seacontinues. Surveys discover new geological features, species and ecosystems, including newhydrothermal vents and their unique biodiversity. The European Commission has funded anumber of research projects focused on enhancing knowledge of the deep sea (e.g. Hermes;Hermione; DeepFishman; CoralFish; MIDAS), which should improve our understanding ofhow the deep sea may be affected by large disturbances. The most relevant project related todeep sea mining is the MIDAS Project, whose objective is to assess and enhance the state ofknowledge of the potential impacts of mining on hydrothermal vent; abyssal plain andseamount ecosystems in the deep sea. One of the issues highlighted thus far within theproject is that despite the many gaps in the scientific knowledge, the International SeabedAuthority does not publicise the scientific information collected by contractors, which haveobtained licenses for exploratory mining activity. It is thus difficult to independently assessthe impact of mineral exploration and, more importantly, whether sufficient baselineinformation is being collected to be able to conduct an effective environmental impactassessment prior to test mining or full scale commercial mining. Environmental NGOs aswell as other stakeholders have called on the ISA to become more transparent, to allow forgreater participation of stakeholders and to ensure that effective conservation orientedregulations are adopted before commercial mining is starting.


9

In terms of societal aspects, the most relevant impacts will likely be associated with the(land) mining life cycle, which lasts approximately 20 - 30 years and may apply to differentstakeholder groups at household, local, regional, national, and international level. Currentexploration is often lacking sufficient participation of the local communities in the decision-making. When it comes to exploitation activities, concerns become even more serious asownership in the marine environment is to some extent unclear or varies depending on exactseabed location (Exclusive Economic Zone or Area Beyond National Jurisdiction). It may alsobe subject to traditional, national, and international norms, laws, and agreements and may beviewed as national property in which every citizen has an interest. This further complicatesprocesses of consultation, usage, and ownership. On the other hand, substantial societalbenefits of mining may include, but are not limited to, employment, local procurement,investment in infrastructure, and local business opportunities. In addition, the society willbenefit from new technologies, research and innovation (and development of new medicine/drugs in case of bioprospecting).

8. Conclusion: What are the next steps and what could the EU do?

Harvesting resources from the deep sea clearly comes with a number of technological, legal,environmental, economic and social knowledge gaps and challenges. For marine rawmaterials, technology needs to prove itself capable of yielding commercially viable returnswithout damaging the sub-marine environment beyond acceptable levels. The legalframework needs to be developed to provide a safe investment environment and protectpeople and places affected by the social and environmental impacts of mining. Researchneeds to improve our knowledge-levels on the environmental effects of deep sea mining, aidregulators and companies to devise the best possible policies and methods. Also, theeconomics of deep sea mining needs to prove itself worthy of the large financial andenvironmental risks associated with deep sea mining, in particular in comparison to landmining. Lastly, the opportunity cost of investing in deep sea mining needs to be compared toother strategies for dealing with resource scarcity and volatile markets. Recycling forexample, could provide the same goods in many cases, and should thus be part of the deepsea mining equation.

For biological resources, there is simply a large knowledge gap in the deep sea ecosystemsand what organisms could be of value and use for human applications. This gap makes anyventure extremely risky in financial terms and scares off investors. Consequently, the overallneed for a better understanding of what the world looks like in the deep seas is valid for bothmining and bioprospecting.

There are several policy options that the EU and its institutions could take to address thesechallenges (see Policy Options brief published alongside the study in a separate document)and it starts from a rather good position in terms of both exploration and exploitation ofdeep sea resources.

In terms of mining, EU-members such as France, Germany, the UK and Belgium havelicences with the ISA to conduct exploration activities. Portugal also has a forefront positiondue to its possible deposits in the waters of the Azores. For technological development,research institutes (e.g. IFREMER) and companies (e.g. IHC Merwede, Technip) in Germany,the Netherlands, France and the UK, have the capacity and knowhow to develop the tools


10

needed to start exploitation. For bioprospecting, European companies such as Bayer andBASF have leading positions in terms of number of patents related to marine organisms. TheEU has also actively supported a number of research initiatives on deep sea resources,mainly through the FP6, FP7 and Horizon 2020 programmes. For example, projects such asBlueMining, MIDAS, PharmaSea and ESONET, contribute in specific ways to build a vibrantand vital research community positioning the EU in the forefront of deep sea exploration andexploitation. This type of funding appears essential if the deep sea ambitions and potentialsare ever going to bear fruit.

Besides continued support for research, other policy options identified in this study are:

Improve communication between and across sectors and raise awareness on the topicamong civil society in order to better understand and manage the opportunities andchallenges with deep sea exploration and exploitation.

Improve the knowledge base and address the environmental impacts by, for example,participating and negotiating EU position in any working group established by the ISAor by setting up an ad hoc temporary committee at the European Parliament.

Support the adoption of a complete legal framework to ensure that environmental andsocial requirements are clear for policy makers and investors enabling a more stable andcertain cost-benefit analysis to be applied.

Support a pilot mining project that is transparent to develop the knowledge andknowhow on what mining actually does and means, taking into account environmentaland social impacts.

Further investigate recycling as an alternative to deep sea mining which could yieldsimilar gains as extracting new resources and adopt a stronger position on this mattertaking into account that some non-EU countries will continue DSM.

Address the societal impacts on local communities to ensure that people affected byresources extraction done by EU and other companies are also adequately protected.Further studies on this topic should be encouraged.

Exploration and exploitation of the deep-seas in search ofmarine minerals and genetic resources have over the pastfifteen years received increased attention. Developments insub-marine technologies, rising raw material prices andscarcity, and advancements in biotechnology, are changingthe business-case for further investments in the marineenvironment.

This report provides a state-of-play overview on exploring andexploiting deep-sea resources. A Cost-Benefit Analysisidentifies the main potentials and challenges in a scenariowhere exploitation increases. Policy options are suggested tobalance trade-offs between economic, social andenvironmental aspects associated with future developments.

PE 547.401ISBN: 978-92-823-6656-1DOI: 10.2861/310632CAT: QA-02-15-201-EN-N

This is a publication of theDirectorate for Impact Assessment and European Added ValueDirectorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services, European Parliament

stoa ida 'technology options for deep-seabed … options for deep-seabed exploitation ......

Documents